The Human Genetics Commission (HGC)'s recent report 'Making Babies: Reproductive decisions and genetic technologies' is the welcome result of two years' consultation and debate. For the most part, the report offers clear and constructive conclusions and recommendations for the future of assisted reproduction and PGD (preimplantation genetic diagnosis), amongst other things. However, the last section of the substantive report entitled 'reproductive tourism' is incongruous in its approach.

The HGC recommends that '...the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority [HFEA] should explore ways in which clinics in the UK can be prevented from preparing or otherwise colluding with individuals intent on seeking treatments which are permissible abroad, but prohibited within the UK'. The report only offers one example of a service permissible abroad but 'prohibited' in the UK, namely social sex selection. In fact, unlike reproductive cloning, social sex selection is not prohibited in the UK: the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act is silent on the subject and the view of the House of Lords in Quintavalle v HFEA was that this silence indicates '...that Parliament intended to leave the matter to the Authority to decide' Lord Hoffman). The HFEA has adopted a policy not to license social sex selection for the time being, much in the same way that it exercised its discretion to refuse licences for PGD with tissue typing until 2004.

This is not only a semantic observation on the curious language adopted by the HGC. The HFEA's regulatory remit is limited to those clinics which perform licensed procedures in the UK: it does not regulate all aspects of assisted conception and it does not regulate treatment which takes place abroad (though it may restrict import and export of embryos and gametes). To extend the remit of the HFEA to enable them to regulate and obtain information about unlicensed treatment occurring outside the UK would be a dramatic extension of their powers at a time when many advocate their role becoming more focused if not diminished.

More fundamentally, the HGC appear to ignore the fact that patients will not need to rely upon the assistance of UK clinics in order to find treatment abroad. Unless the HFEA adopt the approach of certain foreign governments and seek to persuade internet search engines to censor sites advertising services which are not available in the UK, patients will collude with whoever they find. However, preventing UK clinics from any involvement in this process would also prevent them offering advice, counselling, preparatory treatment and follow-up.

Very little is known about the extent of cross-border flow for reproductive care. The European Commission is in the early stages of reviewing the provision of PGD in each EU member state with a view to assessing the extent of cross-border flow and the level of follow-up of such patients. This will inform policy making and provide a useful insight which might allow an informed discussion to take place about how best to address this phenomenon in the best interests of patients and their children. In contrast, preventative legislation of the kind adopted in Italy and Germany (which criminalise referral abroad for treatments prohibited at home, including PGD for any reason) will only serve to create a new range of problems.

SOURCES & REFERENCES

RELATED ARTICLES FROM THE BIONEWS ARCHIVE

The European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) has been concerned about the development of cross-border infertility treatment for some time. There are three reasons for this: the frequently negative publicity for infertility treatment presented as 'reproductive tourism', the increasing numbers and the risks for patients. ESHRE has taken...

A recent report from the Human Genetics Commission (HGC) - the UK government's advisory body on genetics - 'Making Babies: Reproductive decisions and genetic technologies' is the latest in a string of reports designed to help the UK form new legislation on assisted reproduction. I was deeply concerned to read of this...

Baroness Kennedy, launching the Human Genetics Commission (HGC)'s new report, Making Babies: reproductive decisions and genetic technologies, said: 'Science, harnessed by society to prevent real suffering, is a social good. However, a culture which does not acknowledge that all humanity has a value, and that each one of us...

The recent report from the Human Genetics Commission (HGC) - the UK government's advisory body on genetics - 'Making Babies: Reproductive decisions and genetic technologies' is the latest in a series of reports on the state of the law on assisted reproduction in the UK. The House of Commons Science and Technology...

The UK's Human Genetics Commission (HGC) has issued a report that says advances in the techniques that can be used by families at risk of passing on genetic diseases to their children are to be welcomed, but also need careful monitoring. The report, called 'Making Babies: reproductive decisions and genetic...

The recent report from the Human Genetics Commission (HGC) - the UK government's advisory body on genetics - 'Making Babies: Reproductive decisions and genetic technologies' is the latest in a series of reports on the state of the law on assisted reproduction in the UK. The House of Commons Science and Technology...

The UK's Human Genetics Commission (HGC) has issued a report that says advances in the techniques that can be used by families at risk of passing on genetic diseases to their children are to be welcomed, but also need careful monitoring. The report, called 'Making Babies: reproductive decisions and genetic...

Our website uses cookies

Cookies are small text files held on your computer. They allow us to give you the best browsing experience possible and mean we can understand how you use our site. Some cookies have already been set. You can delete and block cookies but parts of our site won't work without them. By using our website you accept our use of cookies.